Do you believe in evolution?

[Kodos]

In Entertainment Weekly, they quote Sarah Palin's book as saying "I [don't] believe in the theory that human beings -- thinking, loving beings -- originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea." Is that really her conception of what the theory of evolution says? At least be bright enough to use the more popular misconception which says that evolution claims we descended from apes. Sheesh. Anyhow, it gave me the idea for a poll.

[ISiddiqui]

Yes... btw, where is the poll?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yes... btw, where is the poll?

Sooner or later, the thread will evolve into a poll. Patience.

[ISiddiqui]

Well done

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Sooner or later, the thread will evolve into a poll. Patience.

No, you heathen, an intelligent being will design the poll.......Kodos must have left to go find one.

[Cringer]

I believe it more then the bible or other religious text.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Sooner or later, the thread will evolve into a poll. Patience.

Nice work. Clearly you came from a particularly clever brand of walking fish.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by sabotai

No, you heathen, an intelligent being will design the poll.......Kodos must have left to go find one.

Equally well done.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Nice work. Clearly you came from a particularly clever brand of walking fish.

Yes. My ancestors helped in WWII... perhaps you have heard of him?

[lungs]

I don't care what no liberal says, I didn't come from no monkey!

[Lathum]

OK, so I hit the wrong damn button. I firmly believe in evolution.

I was on campus the other day and there was a guy preaching on top of a soapbox, literally.

He had all sorts of bumper stickers on it that had statements like "evolution is science fiction."

It amazed me that someone who is probably somewhat educated can think, despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence, the earth was created some 5000 years ago and we were put here by some all powerful being.

[Calis]

I'm finding it much more difficult to decide what my political designation would be than what my answer would be(Yes).

Such decisions.

[Kodos]

I almost put in a trout option for just that scenario, but then I held firm on my no trout pledge.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It amazed me that someone who is probably somewhat educated can think, despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence, the earth was created some 5000 years ago and we were put here by some all powerful being.

All I can say is the Giants were 41 to 1 to win the super bowl two years ago when the playoffs started. Less than 2.5 percent believed they could and backed it with money. More than 2.5 percent don't believe in evolution.

[JediKooter]

I found it odd that political affiliation was attached to the poll. I don't subscribe to any political party and just vote for who I think is the lesser of two evils. I voted yes due to the overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is indeed the 'how' we got to be what we are today.

[cartman]

[Kodos]

I was just trying to see what differences in belief there might be across the political spectrum.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

All I can say is the Giants were 41 to 1 to win the super bowl two years ago when the playoffs started. Less than 2.5 percent believed they could and backed it with money. More than 2.5 percent don't believe in evolution.

awesome comparison.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It amazed me that someone who is probably somewhat educated can think, despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence, the earth was created some 5000 years ago and we were put here by some all powerful being.

Isn't this the basis of Scientology?

[Shkspr]

I don't believe in evolution.

To me the idea of belief assumes faith in the truth of a concept regardless of the underlying correctness of the concept. If the idea of evolution were completely and utterly debunked by a reputable, plausible, rational argument using verifiable evidence, then to continue to support evolution would be a form of sincere "belief".

Contrariwise, if I were to suspect that evolution was a false knowledge, and that there was some other mechanism that more completely and correctly described what was happening in the universe to produce the effects attributed to evolutionary forces, despite the lack of any scientific evidence, that would also be a "belief".

But evolution is, right now, the most credible, observable, evidentiary mechanism found to which we can attribute changes in speciation. As such, supporting it isn't belief. It's knowledge.

I know evolution to be the most true form of arguments in this area that we've uncovered so far. I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise. I'm doubtful it will happen, though - and it won't be ID or creationism in its present form that does the trick.

[Peregrine]

I'm not sure why there is a political affiliation attached to the poll - seems like a straight up yay/nay vote would have been better.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

All I can say is the Giants were 41 to 1 to win the super bowl two years ago when the playoffs started. Less than 2.5 percent believed they could and backed it with money. More than 2.5 percent don't believe in evolution.

Please tell me that you are just trying to come up with a sports analogy on the fly and this doesn't seem logical to you. Please?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

OK, so I hit the wrong damn button. I firmly believe in evolution.

I was on campus the other day and there was a guy preaching on top of a soapbox, literally.

He had all sorts of bumper stickers on it that had statements like "evolution is science fiction."

It amazed me that someone who is probably somewhat educated can think, despite all the overwhelming scientific evidence, the earth was created some 5000 years ago and we were put here by some all powerful being.

I think it can be put simply in one of three ways and a probably a combination of the three...

1. Complete blind zombie drone devotion to their religion
2. They are not being truthful and purposly ignoring the evidence
3. They were dropped on their heads when they were a baby

Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort are classic examples of 1 and 2 with Comfort just completly lying most of the time.

[Calis]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

All I can say is the Giants were 41 to 1 to win the super bowl two years ago when the playoffs started. Less than 2.5 percent believed they could and backed it with money. More than 2.5 percent don't believe in evolution.

This is either the most hilarious post I've read on here in a long time or the saddest. You make the call.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I'm not sure why there is a political affiliation attached to the poll - seems like a straight up yay/nay vote would have been better.

Palin is a Republican and doesn't believe in evolution so, therefore, let's see how many don't believe in evolution and are Republican. Therefore, we can turn this into a religious and political discussion all in one.

[ISiddiqui]

Two for one!

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

I don't believe in evolution.

To me the idea of belief assumes faith in the truth of a concept regardless of the underlying correctness of the concept. If the idea of evolution were completely and utterly debunked by a reputable, plausible, rational argument using verifiable evidence, then to continue to support evolution would be a form of sincere "belief".

Contrariwise, if I were to suspect that evolution was a false knowledge, and that there was some other mechanism that more completely and correctly described what was happening in the universe to produce the effects attributed to evolutionary forces, despite the lack of any scientific evidence, that would also be a "belief".

But evolution is, right now, the most credible, observable, evidentiary mechanism found to which we can attribute changes in speciation. As such, supporting it isn't belief. It's knowledge.

I know evolution to be the most true form of arguments in this area that we've uncovered so far. I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise. I'm doubtful it will happen, though - and it won't be ID or creationism in its present form that does the trick.

Most philosophers would severely question your use of know in this context.

It is simply the best guess we have based on the information at hand. To say that you know it would be that you know it is a theory, and it certainly is knowledge in the definition of "This is the body of knowledge" but it is not possible to Know as true, therefore believe is very appropriate, and more exact.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Palin is a Republican and doesn't believe in evolution so, therefore, let's see how many don't believe in evolution and are Republican. Therefore, we can turn this into a religious and political discussion all in one.

Double your pleasure!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Palin is a Republican and doesn't believe in evolution so, therefore, let's see how many don't believe in evolution and are Republican. Therefore, we can turn this into a religious and political discussion all in one.

It's not necessary but there is a strong correlation between political affiliation and belief in evolution.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

I don't believe in evolution.

To me the idea of belief assumes faith in the truth of a concept regardless of the underlying correctness of the concept. If the idea of evolution were completely and utterly debunked by a reputable, plausible, rational argument using verifiable evidence, then to continue to support evolution would be a form of sincere "belief".

Contrariwise, if I were to suspect that evolution was a false knowledge, and that there was some other mechanism that more completely and correctly described what was happening in the universe to produce the effects attributed to evolutionary forces, despite the lack of any scientific evidence, that would also be a "belief".

But evolution is, right now, the most credible, observable, evidentiary mechanism found to which we can attribute changes in speciation. As such, supporting it isn't belief. It's knowledge.

I know evolution to be the most true form of arguments in this area that we've uncovered so far. I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise. I'm doubtful it will happen, though - and it won't be ID or creationism in its present form that does the trick.

I agree with Shkspr on this.

I wish there was a better word to use other than believe when asking someone if that's what they agree with as opposed to some other way. Perhaps a better way to ask would be: "Do you agree with the Theory of Evolution?"

[RainMaker]

And I still believe that those who say No still believe in evolution subconciously in one way or another.

For those who say no, if you came down with cancer, would you pass on cancer treatment? Do you avoid having your children get flu shots? What about all the other medicines that are derived from the evolutionary science? I have a feeling your belief isn't as strong when your life is on the line.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

Most philosophers would severely question your use of know in this context.

It is simply the best guess we have based on the information at hand. To say that you know it would be that you know it is a theory, and it certainly is knowledge in the definition of "This is the body of knowledge" but it is not possible to Know as true, therefore believe is very appropriate, and more exact.

The problem though, the Theory of Evolution is not a philosophy. It's not like existentialism or some other philosophy that are mostly comprised of intangibles.

Evolution, at this point in time, is far beyond a best guess status. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is a fact. Don't let the word theory throw you off. There's a huge huge difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

Most philosophers would severely question your use of know in this context.

Most philosophers, in my experience, also have trouble showing up on time for a seven hour shift, can't manage to perform more than fifteen minutes of actual labor at a go, and are pathologically incapable of actively listening to the needs of others and acting to fill those needs. I'm willing to court their scorn.

It is simply the best guess we have based on the information at hand. To say that you know it would be that you know it is a theory, and it certainly is knowledge in the definition of "This is the body of knowledge" but it is not possible to Know as true, therefore believe is very appropriate, and more exact.

The issue here, I suppose, is the question of "belief" as a synonym for "religious faith". Palin says, "I do not believe in evolution", and will maintain that stance, despite all evidence to the contrary, because of her faith. In this discussion, then, for me to state "I believe in evolution" implies, to me, the same level of faith. It places scientific inquiry on the same level as religious fantabulation. The double duty of the word "belief" to mean both religious faith and scientific opinion is vaguely abhorrent. I don't find it at all exact.

Now, from what I'm picking up, I can't actually epistemologically say "I know evolution to be true" unless it actually is. I am certain, however, that I don't "believe in evolution" the same way Sarah Palin "doesn't believe in evolution", that is to say, with a deeply held opinion unswayable by future events.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The problem though, the Theory of Evolution is not a philosophy. It's not like existentialism or some other philosophy that are mostly comprised of intangibles.

Evolution, at this point in time, is far beyond a best guess status. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is a fact. Don't let the word theory throw you off. There's a huge huge difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

You'll note that Shkspr makes a much batter claim in teh post below yours about what he meant, and is much more exact.

[BrianD]

I always like to use the word "accept" in discussions like this. I don't "believe" in evolution, but based on the available scientific evidence, I accept the theory of evolution. If scientific evidence points elsewhere in the future, my acceptance will change as well.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The problem though, the Theory of Evolution is not a philosophy. It's not like existentialism or some other philosophy that are mostly comprised of intangibles.

Evolution, at this point in time, is far beyond a best guess status. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is a fact. Don't let the word theory throw you off. There's a huge huge difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Explain the difference between humans and the next highest species. (your choice as to whatever you want that to be) I believe in some sort of aspect to evolution...I think you all but have to given the evidence.

That said, humans are so far ahead from the other creatures. To me, there simply is no explanation as to why we are so much more advanced compared to others. To me, there would be more of a chain between us and other species. If you tell me we're 99.4% the same as whatever species you choose to make your argument, I'll simply say that must be one hell of a .6% to make us so far above whatever species you choose for that argument.

I can't say what type of God it is but I fully believe some sort of being spurred the universe and don't have a problem making the leap that this being spurred humans to a completely other level compared to the rest of the animal kingdom or in some way just flat out created humans differently than other animals. For me anyway...things work way too perfectly not to have been designed in some way.

[stevew]

I guess I really don't care? I really don't feel like taking the time to actually figure out what the difference is between evolution and adaptation. And I can't form an accurate position on the subject.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

You'll note that Shkspr makes a much batter claim in teh post below yours about what he meant, and is much more exact.

I don't think I'm quite following you here. You were looking for a specific answer?

[Ryan S]

This poll has not gone the way I expected.

It may change in time, but after 64 votes, the no votes are not in the categories I expected them to be.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by rowech

Explain the difference between humans and the next highest species. (your choice as to whatever you want that to be) I believe in some sort of aspect to evolution...I think you all but have to given the evidence.

You need to define what 'next highest species' means. However, it is my opinion that it means little to nothing when it comes to evolution. Evolution affects every living thing, so it doesn't matter what 'level' a species may be on.

Originally Posted by rowech

That said, humans are so far ahead from the other creatures. To me, there simply is no explanation as to why we are so much more advanced compared to others. To me, there would be more of a chain between us and other species. If you tell me we're 99.4% the same as whatever species you choose to make your argument, I'll simply say that must be one hell of a .6% to make us so far above whatever species you choose for that argument.

There is one theory that it is our ability to talk (beyond warning others and mating rituals), our brain size and the use of tools (there are just a few things), that has led us on the evolutionary path humans are on. There is a chain between us and other 'species'. For example, humans decended from the same common ancestor as the other hominids (monkeys, apes, etc).

From what I have read, it actually doesn't take much to make huge differences in species. *Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA. There is no exact reason known as to why our cousins went extinct and we didn't. I don't think it was because we posessed a different .5% of DNA though. I'm not choosing anything here other than giving you an example that it doesn't take much to make us 'different'.

Originally Posted by rowech

I can't say what type of God it is but I fully believe some sort of being spurred the universe and don't have a problem making the leap that this being spurred humans to a completely other level compared to the rest of the animal kingdom or in some way just flat out created humans differently than other animals. For me anyway...things work way too perfectly not to have been designed in some way.

I think it's rather conceted of us to think that we are 'better' than other species (if that's what you are implying). Different than other species, most definitely yes. What works way too perfectly? For example, the human body is shoddy at best in quality. If it was designed by a 'maker' I'd have to question that designers ability big time.



*Wikipedia

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by rowech

...things work way too perfectly not to have been designed in some way.

I think I disagree with your acceptance of what "Too Perfectly" stands for then, because nothing on this planet works "too perfectly" most things are lucky to exist at all given their histories and developments. This is an argument from the religious side of the aisle that I've always found just wacked.

Originally Posted by stevew

I guess I really don't care? I really don't feel like taking the time to actually figure out what the difference is between evolution and adaptation. And I can't form an accurate position on the subject.

Evolution is adaptation of a species to its environment to facilitate survival. And just to remind the universe at large, Evolution is called a theory because thats the title its always had and while it still cannot point out the precise timing, causality etc etc for a speciaes to trigger an evolutionary change, Evolution as the act and ability of all life has been proven to exist.

The biggest argument between science and religion gets twisted by the religious side.

Evolution is not the definition of "This is how everything began", it is simply the description of how everything "exists, survives and develops over time"

Someday humanity will realize there doesn't have to be this huge debate over evolution and creation because they are not and can never be solutions for the same thing. Creation can never be the answer to how and why everything changes and develops over time and Evolution can never be the "how did everything start"

Hopefully everyone will get this tiny but monumental point one day.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

There is one theory that it is our ability to talk (beyond warning others and mating rituals), our brain size and the use of tools (there are just a few things), that has led us on the evolutionary path humans are on. There is a chain between us and other 'species'. For example, humans decended from the same common ancestor as the other hominids (monkeys, apes, etc).

From what I have read, it actually doesn't take much to make huge differences in species. *Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA. There is no exact reason known as to why our cousins went extinct and we didn't. I don't think it was because we posessed a different .5% of DNA though. I'm not choosing anything here other than giving you an example that it doesn't take much to make us 'different'.

Behavioral modernity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lot of theories behind how we made such a big leap from our ancestors. Ultimately it comes down to brain size and sophistication ours has over our ancestors. The ironic thing is that our brains probably grew due to our inadequecies in other areas. We were not strong enough to take on huge animals on our own so our brains had to evolve to survive.

The DNA doesn't lie. We know who we descended from and are able in some ways to put relative timeframes on when we split from some species. If some people believe that a God sprinkled magic into our DNA at certain times across the last 10 million years to make us smarter, sweat, and interact, then so be it. But there is no evidence of that at all in our DNA or the fossil records.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

Explain the difference between humans and the next highest species. (your choice as to whatever you want that to be) I believe in some sort of aspect to evolution...I think you all but have to given the evidence.

That said, humans are so far ahead from the other creatures. To me, there simply is no explanation as to why we are so much more advanced compared to others. To me, there would be more of a chain between us and other species. If you tell me we're 99.4% the same as whatever species you choose to make your argument, I'll simply say that must be one hell of a .6% to make us so far above whatever species you choose for that argument.

I can't say what type of God it is but I fully believe some sort of being spurred the universe and don't have a problem making the leap that this being spurred humans to a completely other level compared to the rest of the animal kingdom or in some way just flat out created humans differently than other animals. For me anyway...things work way too perfectly not to have been designed in some way.

What you are saying though is that if you can't figure out why something happened, it must be a supernatural force. Would be like watching a boiling pot of water on the stove and saying "I don't understand why it bubbles, so it must be done by some Water God".

We are ahead intellectually from other species. That does have an exponential effect on our world but doesn't mean we are better at everything. A lion or bear is superior to us in fighting. Some animals are superior to us in hearing, eyesight, or smell. Some animals can live much longer than us under controlled circumstances. Others run faster and farther than we can.

We have been able to control the planet because we are smarter than other species. It was something that came because of the factors in the world that necessitated our species to get smarter. Just as there were factors that helped other species become superior to us in other areas.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What you are saying though is that if you can't figure out why something happened, it must be a supernatural force. Would be like watching a boiling pot of water on the stove and saying "I don't understand why it bubbles, so it must be done by some Water God".

We are ahead intellectually from other species. That does have an exponential effect on our world but doesn't mean we are better at everything. A lion or bear is superior to us in fighting. Some animals are superior to us in hearing, eyesight, or smell. Some animals can live much longer than us under controlled circumstances. Others run faster and farther than we can.

We have been able to control the planet because we are smarter than other species. It was something that came because of the factors in the world that necessitated our species to get smarter. Just as there were factors that helped other species become superior to us in other areas.

I'm not going to get into a big debate over stuff. Not worth the time and effort as everyone has their own beliefs and they aren't likely to change which is fine.

All I can say is I have a firm belief that there is a Creator of some sort that helped to bring us to the point we are. I have no clue if any of the religions of today are the "true" religion.

Furthermore, there is no way any of us will ever know the truth in our lifetimes about evolution, creation, or some other place on the spectrum between these two. We may all think we have ideas and know but none of us will ever know for certain. It's that simple and that complex. Each person has to make their own way through all of it and reach the conclusions they feel comfortable with for their own life because in the end, that's what it's all about.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

I'm not going to get into a big debate over stuff. Not worth the time and effort as everyone has their own beliefs and they aren't likely to change which is fine.

All I can say is I have a firm belief that there is a Creator of some sort that helped to bring us to the point we are. I have no clue if any of the religions of today are the "true" religion.

Furthermore, there is no way any of us will ever know the truth in our lifetimes about evolution, creation, or some other place on the spectrum between these two. We may all think we have ideas and know but none of us will ever know for certain. It's that simple and that complex. Each person has to make their own way through all of it and reach the conclusions they feel comfortable with for their own life because in the end, that's what it's all about.

You try and minimize the belief in evolution by putting in the same belief system as creationism. The problem is that evolution has countless scientific evidence to backup its claim. The belief in a supernatural force doing all this has zero. Yes people believe in different things, but there is a huge difference in believing in something that has evidence to back it up and someone believing in something because they like the story better.

We do know the truth in evolution. It's been studied and used in your everyday life. If you tryly don't believe in it, don't take any medicine your doctor prescribes. Don't listen to your doctor when he tells you that you may be predisposed to a health factor because your parents will. Buy a cheap horse and pretend he can win the Kentucky Derby because it has nothing to do with evolution.

If you don't believe in evolution, don't take cancer drugs because the science behind it is unproven and bullshit. But when life is on the line, convictions about fairy tales tend to get much weaker.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You try and minimize the belief in evolution by putting in the same belief system as creationism. The problem is that evolution has countless scientific evidence to backup its claim. The belief in a supernatural force doing all this has zero. Yes people believe in different things, but there is a huge difference in believing in something that has evidence to back it up and someone believing in something because they like the story better.

We do know the truth in evolution. It's been studied and used in your everyday life. If you tryly don't believe in it, don't take any medicine your doctor prescribes. Don't listen to your doctor when he tells you that you may be predisposed to a health factor because your parents will. Buy a cheap horse and pretend he can win the Kentucky Derby because it has nothing to do with evolution.

If you don't believe in evolution, don't take cancer drugs because the science behind it is unproven and bullshit. But when life is on the line, convictions about fairy tales tend to get much weaker.

Like I said...don't care to debate it and your post is why. You've clearly made up your mind...I've made up my mind...we aren't going to change each others views by pissing at each other for three pages of this thread.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by rowech

Like I said...don't care to debate it and your post is why. You've clearly made up your mind...I've made up my mind...we aren't going to change each others views by pissing at each other for three pages of this thread.

The difference is your mind is made up, but your facts are wrong.

Evolution is a fact, the act of any single species changing at the genetic level and adapting itself to its environment is not a theory its a proven fact of our existence.

The "Theory" you seem to be equating so inaccurately to creation is a misrepresentation that Evolution somehow negates or decries Creation.

You can sit there and say "I believe w3hat I believe" but when you blatantly espouse a belief based on known inaccuracies, well that kinda kills your whole position to begin with.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Kodos

At least be bright enough to use the more popular misconception which says that evolution claims we descended from apes. Sheesh. Anyhow, it gave me the idea for a poll.

Haven't read an book on evolution lately but when I was studying it, it was "apes and humans descended from a common ancestor". The branch that went ape didn't quite have the 'spark' as our branch. I don't think this changes the argument substantially either way.

[Edward64]

I forget the documentary (either PBS, Discovery or History) but a theory was how human ancestors could walk upright as a defining characteristic. This gave us the ability to forage and bring food back to 'home' and take care of the family.

Sorry, didn't do it justice but it was tied to us walking upright in our ability to grow, prosper etc. as a species.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You can sit there and say "I believe w3hat I believe" but when you blatantly espouse a belief based on known inaccuracies, well that kinda kills your whole position to begin with.

In order to have a belief it must be based on known accuracies?